I a monk said to me before that there is no such thing as a single soul. He either meant two things that we don't exist or that we are all connected. I believe he meant the latter instead of the former.

The fact of the matter is that the assertion of no self is either two things. No existence of the self which of course is not true. We exist and don't exist at the same time. or the fact that we are all connected to every living being in existence. I believe in the latter instead of the former.

As long as anything is taken to be "I, me, mine, myself", suffering and stress will follow. So the teaching aims at the ending of those cognitive habits. The thing that you are positing here kind of misses the point.

---The trouble is that you think you have time------Worry is the Interest, paid in advance, on a debt you may never owe------It's not what happens to you in life that is important ~ it's what you do with it ---

Hi, I think it might be helpful to look at what the differences are in between annihilationism and nihilism, and the reason why the Buddha discredited both of them (or at least in the way that I understand it):

Annihilationism: If we get rid of the self, then we won't suffer anymore... (i.e., if we only could kill the self, then we'll be OK!)Nihilism: There is no self that would suffer anyway, so we're already OK! (i.e., no need to practice anything.)

Neither of the above would lead to the cure of dukkha. Why?

It's because both of them are based on the idea of a "self"... which is illusory. (Even "no self" is still using the idea of "self.") When you try to base your own practice on any kind of illusion, it will lead you to nowhere (at best)... or at worst, to an endless spiral of illusions...

Zom, your "New York" example is actually interesting... because there is no "New York". It's only land, trees, mountains, rivers, buildings, people, animals, etc. But even then... saying that there is no "New York" still won't do us any good, because there are still land, trees, people, animals, etc. for us to deal with. (Sorry if this seems a bit Zen, but it's true!)

Nihilism described here as 'wrong view' by the Buddha (from the Maha-cattarisaka Sutta):

MN 117 wrote:"And what is wrong view? 'There is nothing given, nothing offered, nothing sacrificed. There is no fruit or result of good or bad actions. There is no this world, no next world, no mother, no father, no spontaneously reborn beings; no priests or contemplatives who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the next after having directly known & realized it for themselves.' This is wrong view."

"A 'position,' Vaccha, is something that a Tathagata has done away with. What a Tathagata sees is this: 'Such is form, such its origin, such its disappearance; such is feeling, such its origin, such its disappearance; such is perception... such are mental fabrications... such is consciousness, such its origin, such its disappearance.' Because of this, I say, a Tathagata — with the ending, fading out, cessation, renunciation, & relinquishment of all construings, all excogitations, all I-making & mine-making & obsession with conceit — is, through lack of clinging/sustenance, released."

hold no view on self and you will never worry (dukkha) about it. that's what i got from it.

"I don't envision a single thing that, when developed & cultivated, leads to such great benefit as the mind. The mind, when developed & cultivated, leads to great benefit."

"I don't envision a single thing that, when undeveloped & uncultivated, brings about such suffering & stress as the mind. The mind, when undeveloped & uncultivated, brings about suffering & stress."